Appointment could not be denied on the ground that other dependents of the deceased person who died in harness was already in employment.: Manipur High Court

It is settled that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment as upheld by the High Court of Manipur through the learned bench led by Justice M.V. Muralidaran in the case of Shri W. Jico Singh v. The State of Manipur (W.P.(C) No.611 of 2019)

The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, Tikendrakumar died-inharness on 19.6.2005 and the petitioner is one of the dependents to his deceased father and also unmarried living with his brother and rest of the family members are settled and supported by his mother at another place. After the death of his father, the petitioner applied for appointment under the compassionate grounds on 29.8.2005 under die-in-harness scheme. The respondent authorities rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it was applied during the time when the scheme was banned on 15.6.2002 through the office letter dated 1.9.2005. Later the scheme was lifted and restored on 16.12.2006 stating that the families who died-in-harness during the period from 15.6.2002 upto the date of restoration will be covered under the scheme with immediate effect. According to the petitioner, since he was unaware of the office memorandum, the petitioner approached the respondent as soon as it came to his knowledge with a representation dated 10.7.2007 and again on 21.4.2017 to consider the application. However, the said application was rejected by the fourth respondent through an order dated 18.4.2012 stating that the petitioner cannot further claim under die-in-harness scheme. Further case of the petitioner is that since the authority handled the matter technically rather than on humanistic and compassionate grounds, he filed W.P.(C) No.319 of 2017 praying for consideration of appointment under compassionate ground on 3.5.2017 and by an order dated 11.6.2018, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the State respondents to consider for appointment under die-in-harness scheme as per rules. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 20.6.2018 to abide by the order dated 11.6.2018 passed in the said writ petition. In response to the said legal notice, an order dated 6.9.2018 was issued by the third respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that since the petitioner himself affirmed that the mother of the petitioner i.e., wife of the deceased Government employee was serving as a regular Assistant Teacher under the Government of Manipur upto 30.6.2012, the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment under die-in-harness scheme. As such, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 6.9.2018 rejecting the application of the petitioner and therefore, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order.

The Hon’ble Court held, “In the case on hand, admittedly, the original application of the petitioner is dated 29.8.2005 and the said application was rejected two times by the respondent authorities, firstly on 1.9.2005 stating ban and secondly on 18.4.2012 stating that the petitioner cannot further claim under die-in-harness scheme. From the materials produced, it is seen that the respondent authorities alone delayed in considering the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.9.2018 issued by the third respondent is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider and appoint the petitioner to a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualifications under the die-inharness scheme of the Government of Manipur as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.319 of 2017, dated 11.6.2018. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat